Isn't the kids will get the wrong impression defense explicitly rejected in Good News -though(I don't have access to the decision)perhaps only by a plurality. Marc
From: Volokh, Eugene [mailto:vol...@law.ucla.edu] Sent: Monday, August 15, 2011 12:43 PM To: Law & Religion issues for Law Academics <religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu> Subject: RE: Widmar v. Vincent redux, though in a traditional public forum? Well, the state constitutional defense for the exclusion was raised in Widmar as well and rejected; and the worship-nonworship line was rejected, too. So I don’t think the play-in-the-joints argument is consistent with Widmar. Davey’s response to Rosenberger was simply that, “The purpose of the Promise Scholarship Program is to assist students from low- and middle-income families with the cost of postsecondary education, not to ‘encourage a diversity of views from private speakers.’ Our cases dealing with speech forums are simply inapplicable.” I’m skeptical about this analysis; but even accepting it, as we must, this case is on the Rosenberger/Widmar side, not the Davey side, because according to traditional public forum analysis one purpose of parks is precisely to “encourage a diversity of views from private speakers.” Eugene From: religionlaw-boun...@lists.ucla.edu [mailto:religionlaw-boun...@lists.ucla.edu] On Behalf Of Bezanson, Randall P Sent: Monday, August 15, 2011 8:32 AM To: Law & Religion issues for Law Academics Subject: RE: Widmar v. Vincent redux, though in a traditional public forum? You are quite right about Locke, Eugene, but I'm not sure that that settles the matter. Washington justified its exclusion of those studying for the ministry on grounds of its own constitutional guarantee of separation of church and state, and the Court accepted that this fell within the State's power via the religion clauses' room in the joints. Logically, that seems analogous. I remember in the old days when I was serving as counsel and then VP at the U of Iowa, that our position was that rooms for religious groups to gather were fine, but holding church services wasn't because it crossed the EC line. I also realize that that was over 30 years ago and much water has gone over the dam, maybe enough to make my old view nothing but a quaint relic. I didn't look specifically at Widmar when I offered the room in the joints thought, so perhaps I'm just tilting at windmills. Yet the logic via Locke seems apt. Randy ________________________________ From: religionlaw-boun...@lists.ucla.edu [religionlaw-boun...@lists.ucla.edu] on behalf of Volokh, Eugene [vol...@law.ucla.edu] Sent: Monday, August 15, 2011 9:45 AM To: Law & Religion issues for Law Academics Subject: RE: Widmar v. Vincent redux, though in a traditional public forum? I’m not forgetting that, but my sense is that Locke treated a financial subsidy for the benefit of listeners as quite different from the Widmar et al. scenario of access to government property for speakers and listeners. It certainly didn’t say anything to suggest that it was cutting back on Widmar. Or am I missing something there? (Widmar et al. after all also involved “old-time separationist view[s],” whether “respectable” or not; but the Court rejected that view there, and even many “old-time separationist[s]” signed on to the rejection.) Eugene From: religionlaw-boun...@lists.ucla.edu [mailto:religionlaw-boun...@lists.ucla.edu] On Behalf Of Bezanson, Randall P Sent: Monday, August 15, 2011 3:51 AM To: Law & Religion issues for Law Academics Cc: religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu Subject: Re: Widmar v. Vincent redux, though in a traditional public forum? Well ... Don't forget Rehnquist's "play in the joints" from Locke v. Davey, also a Washington case, by the way. Te state's position seems like a perfectly respectable old-time separationist view. Randy Bezanson U Iowa Sent from my iPad On Aug 14, 2011, at 11:24 PM, "Volokh, Eugene" <vol...@law.ucla.edu<mailto:vol...@law.ucla.edu>> wrote: Any thoughts on this incident? It sounds to me like the church should win in Widmar v. Vincent – if a university can’t exclude religious worship from a designated public forum, it surely can’t exclude it from a traditional public forum, no? Indeed, the baptism would presumably involve not just speech but also the immersion of a person in water (if that’s the kind of baptism that’s involved); but I take it that this is expressive conduct, and expressive conduct that isn’t being limited because of some harms that supposedly flow from its physical properties (such as the risk of drowning or some such). Or am I missing something here? Eugene Feed: Religion Clause Posted on: Sunday, August 14, 2011 10:46 AM Author: Howard Friedman Subject: Washington State Denies Permit For Baptism Ceremony At State Capitol Park In Olympia, Washington, Heritage Park<http://www.ga.wa.gov/visitor/Parks/HP.htm> is a 24-acre state-owned park next to the state capitol campus. The state will issue permits for events to be held at the park. Today's Bellingham (WA) Herald<http://www.bellinghamherald.com/2011/08/13/2141468/state-rejects-olympia-churchs.html> reports that the state's Department of General Administration has given Reality Church of Olympia a permit for a barbecue and picnic to be held today, but has denied its request to conduct a baptism along with the event. The Department, deciding an appeal of an initial denial, said that the state constitution bars the use of public property for religious worship. The church had argued that its free speech and free exercise rights were infringed by the denial. Error! Filename not specified. View article...<http://religionclause.blogspot.com/2011/08/washington-state-denies-permit-for.html> _______________________________________________ To post, send message to Religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu<mailto:Religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu> To subscribe, unsubscribe, change options, or get password, see http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/religionlaw Please note that messages sent to this large list cannot be viewed as private. Anyone can subscribe to the list and read messages that are posted; people can read the Web archives; and list members can (rightly or wrongly) forward the messages to others.
_______________________________________________ To post, send message to Religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu To subscribe, unsubscribe, change options, or get password, see http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/religionlaw Please note that messages sent to this large list cannot be viewed as private. Anyone can subscribe to the list and read messages that are posted; people can read the Web archives; and list members can (rightly or wrongly) forward the messages to others.
